Ptolemaic model vs. Copernican model

contingent · 20th November 2009, 08:47 PM

Today in class the professor started talking about the world science has many misleading ideas of how science works for example, its history. He points that most theories ( E=mc2,Copernican model) revolutions in science were not motivated by the determination to discover something life changing but theories came about from scientists who just throwing theories out there (dreams, drug use, if someone wife like it, etc).

He pointed out that the Ptolemaic model is just as good as the Copernican model and that there was and there isn't no reason to pick one over the other. I know this is BS but what are some reasons or all reasons, data, evidence show that Copernican model is more reliable than the Ptolemaic model?

Perpetual Student · 20th November 2009, 09:49 PM

Here is one of a plethora of "reasons":

Quote:

In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to observe that Venus showed all phases, just like the Moon. He thought that while this observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system, it was a natural consequence of the heliocentric system.

Take a look: LINK

By the way, your professor is an idiot!

Roboramma · 20th November 2009, 10:06 PM

When Copernicus first proposed his model of the solar system, there was little to differentiate it from the older Ptolemaic model. The best one could do was to say that it was a much simpler system. The problem, of course, being that at the time measurements were not accurate enough to show which was right.

We have much more accurate measurements now. They show not only that the Copernican model is better than the Ptolemaic model, but they also show it's flaws. For instance, orbits are elipitical, not circular.
We can go even beyond that, though, and understand the mechanism that keeps those planets in their orbits, and see that the same mechanism keeps us on the earth.

The theory of gravity explains planetary motions, explains the motions of comets and asteroids, and does so in such a way that it predicts, to extreme accuracy, the future motion of those bodies. And here's the clincher: even bodies that we haven't discovered yet. The Ptolemaic model is incapable of doing that.

It may have been hard to distinguish between the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model when Copernicus first proposed it, but things have changed a great deal in the past several hundred years, and anyone who thinks that there's any difficulty distinguishing the two now has no idea about the accuracy of astronomical measurements available to us.

(And all this without even making mention of NASA).

shadron · 20th November 2009, 10:29 PM

I would modify that a bit. The Ptolemaic was quite accurate by the time the Copernicus lived; the problem was that it is descriptive, not proscriptive; the size of the epicycles that were used to "fix" it could not be predicted, they could only be made to fit by hindsite, custom made to fit the observations. They were more accurate than the Copernican system for predicting future placements of existing bodies (because, of course, Copernicus was using the "perfect" circle). Only when Kepler added elliptical orbits did Copernicus' model become supremely accurate. Newton then added the theory which made it possible to accurately proscribe orbits from observations or theoretically. It is possible to predict an orbit from three observations made here on earth; that is impossible with the Ptolemaic system.

EDT: Your professor is a crock, IMHO. For example, Kepler's laws of motion were derived from observation, they weren't dreamed up. Kepler had access to the best observations of the day, done in Tycho Brahe's observatory, some even done by Kepler. There was no "seeing who'd salute".

MattusMaximus · 21st November 2009, 12:07 AM

Shadron's nailed it.

And I third the sentiment that your professor is a moron.

GreNME · 21st November 2009, 12:22 AM

Teach the controversy! Just like Evolution/Creationism, Global Warming/Global Cooling, and so on!

Ladewig · 21st November 2009, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by contingent

He points that most theories ( E=mc2,Copernican model) revolutions in science were not motivated by the determination to discover something life changing but theories came about from scientists who just throwing theories out there (dreams, drug use, if someone wife like it, etc).

I'd also like to add that the difference he describes is a false dichotomy. Many scientific discoveries were neither motivated by a desire to discover a life changing theory or by just "throwing theories out there." Many discoveries were simply the result of looking for a better description of events or observations (e.g. atomic theory coming from Rutherford trying to explain Geiger and Marsden's gold foil experiment).

jasonpatterson · 21st November 2009, 05:47 PM

I wonder if he or she was trying to make a point about choosing a frame of reference in saying that of the two neither was superior. It's the only thing I can think of that makes sense, really.

X · 21st November 2009, 07:05 PM

Point of curiousity:

Did your professor say the Geocentric model is just as good as the Heliocentric model, or did he say that the Geocentric model was just as good as the Heliocentric model when the Copernican model was first proposed?

The bit about scientific theories being born of drugs or what-have-you is idiotic.
As a professor, he has a responsibility to his students to ensure that the information he disseminates is accurate.
Failure to do this (i.e. lying through ignorance), in a position of educational authority such as he's in, is as reprehensible, in my opinion, as intentionally lying.

Beerina · 21st November 2009, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by jasonpatterson

I wonder if he or she was trying to make a point about choosing a frame of reference in saying that of the two neither was superior. It's the only thing I can think of that makes sense, really.

Or perhaps that most revolutionary concepts weren't created by some guy who sat down and said, gee, I want to create a revolution, and that requires a crazy idea.

But even so, while it's true there's a certain amount of "ripeness" for a new idea, I wouldn't discount the genius part of it. Einstein didn't invent the atomic theory of matter, nor even come up with relativity per se. He did, however, come up with deep consequences of both and wrote famous papers that demonstrated this by working out the math. He made the predictions that others could not.

wollery · 21st November 2009, 10:32 PM

Can I just ask, what subject is this professor lecturing on?

Because if it's science then he's a moron, but if it's philosophy then he's just ignorant.

20th November 2009, 08:47 PM	#1
contingent Student Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 32	Ptolemaic model vs. Copernican model Today in class the professor started talking about the world science has many misleading ideas of how science works for example, its history. He points that most theories ( E=mc2,Copernican model) revolutions in science were not motivated by the determination to discover something life changing but theories came about from scientists who just throwing theories out there (dreams, drug use, if someone wife like it, etc). He pointed out that the Ptolemaic model is just as good as the Copernican model and that there was and there isn't no reason to pick one over the other. I know this is BS but what are some reasons or all reasons, data, evidence show that Copernican model is more reliable than the Ptolemaic model?
contingent Student Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 32

20th November 2009, 09:49 PM	#2
Perpetual Student Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,262	Here is one of a plethora of "reasons": Quote: In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to observe that Venus showed all phases, just like the Moon. He thought that while this observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system, it was a natural consequence of the heliocentric system. Take a look: LINK By the way, your professor is an idiot!
	__________________ $\xi$ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 20th November 2009 at 09:50 PM.

20th November 2009, 10:06 PM	#3
Roboramma Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 3,374	When Copernicus first proposed his model of the solar system, there was little to differentiate it from the older Ptolemaic model. The best one could do was to say that it was a much simpler system. The problem, of course, being that at the time measurements were not accurate enough to show which was right. We have much more accurate measurements now. They show not only that the Copernican model is better than the Ptolemaic model, but they also show it's flaws. For instance, orbits are elipitical, not circular. We can go even beyond that, though, and understand the mechanism that keeps those planets in their orbits, and see that the same mechanism keeps us on the earth. The theory of gravity explains planetary motions, explains the motions of comets and asteroids, and does so in such a way that it predicts, to extreme accuracy, the future motion of those bodies. And here's the clincher: even bodies that we haven't discovered yet. The Ptolemaic model is incapable of doing that. It may have been hard to distinguish between the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model when Copernicus first proposed it, but things have changed a great deal in the past several hundred years, and anyone who thinks that there's any difficulty distinguishing the two now has no idea about the accuracy of astronomical measurements available to us. (And all this without even making mention of NASA).
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov www.reddoor-yoga.com

20th November 2009, 10:29 PM	#4
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,856	I would modify that a bit. The Ptolemaic was quite accurate by the time the Copernicus lived; the problem was that it is descriptive, not proscriptive; the size of the epicycles that were used to "fix" it could not be predicted, they could only be made to fit by hindsite, custom made to fit the observations. They were more accurate than the Copernican system for predicting future placements of existing bodies (because, of course, Copernicus was using the "perfect" circle). Only when Kepler added elliptical orbits did Copernicus' model become supremely accurate. Newton then added the theory which made it possible to accurately proscribe orbits from observations or theoretically. It is possible to predict an orbit from three observations made here on earth; that is impossible with the Ptolemaic system. EDT: Your professor is a crock, IMHO. For example, Kepler's laws of motion were derived from observation, they weren't dreamed up. Kepler had access to the best observations of the day, done in Tycho Brahe's observatory, some even done by Kepler. There was no "seeing who'd salute".
	Last edited by shadron; 20th November 2009 at 10:31 PM.

21st November 2009, 12:07 AM	#5
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Shadron's nailed it. And I third the sentiment that your professor is a moron.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

21st November 2009, 12:22 AM	#6
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Teach the controversy! Just like Evolution/Creationism, Global Warming/Global Cooling, and so on!
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2009, 07:38 AM	#7
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,961	Originally Posted by contingent He points that most theories ( E=mc2,Copernican model) revolutions in science were not motivated by the determination to discover something life changing but theories came about from scientists who just throwing theories out there (dreams, drug use, if someone wife like it, etc). I'd also like to add that the difference he describes is a false dichotomy. Many scientific discoveries were neither motivated by a desire to discover a life changing theory or by just "throwing theories out there." Many discoveries were simply the result of looking for a better description of events or observations (e.g. atomic theory coming from Rutherford trying to explain Geiger and Marsden's gold foil experiment).
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

21st November 2009, 05:47 PM	#8
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Macedonia, OH Posts: 906	I wonder if he or she was trying to make a point about choosing a frame of reference in saying that of the two neither was superior. It's the only thing I can think of that makes sense, really.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

21st November 2009, 07:05 PM	#9
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Follow the scratchy sounds of a violin novice... Posts: 2,188	Point of curiousity: Did your professor say the Geocentric model is just as good as the Heliocentric model, or did he say that the Geocentric model was just as good as the Heliocentric model when the Copernican model was first proposed? The bit about scientific theories being born of drugs or what-have-you is idiotic. As a professor, he has a responsibility to his students to ensure that the information he disseminates is accurate. Failure to do this (i.e. lying through ignorance), in a position of educational authority such as he's in, is as reprehensible, in my opinion, as intentionally lying.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." Learn the difference, people!

21st November 2009, 09:47 PM	#10
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by jasonpatterson I wonder if he or she was trying to make a point about choosing a frame of reference in saying that of the two neither was superior. It's the only thing I can think of that makes sense, really. Or perhaps that most revolutionary concepts weren't created by some guy who sat down and said, gee, I want to create a revolution, and that requires a crazy idea. But even so, while it's true there's a certain amount of "ripeness" for a new idea, I wouldn't discount the genius part of it. Einstein didn't invent the atomic theory of matter, nor even come up with relativity per se. He did, however, come up with deep consequences of both and wrote famous papers that demonstrated this by working out the math. He made the predictions that others could not.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

21st November 2009, 10:32 PM	#11
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: City of Eternal Spring Posts: 8,623	Can I just ask, what subject is this professor lecturing on? Because if it's science then he's a moron, but if it's philosophy then he's just ignorant.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin